[iDC] Some notes on value...

[Janet Hawtin]

On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 5:44 AM, Brian Holmes <brian.holmes at wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> Hello all,
>
>  I'm quite sympathetic to the line of thought pursued here. The idea of
>  the esteem economy is worth developing! But I'd like to ask a question
>  about brands and freedom:
>  > in the self-understanding of
>  > contemporary capitalism, the monetary value of brands are based on
>  > their ethical values, their ability to accumulate mass affect.
>  > What creates these ethical values? [...] people pay to use brands in

If the brand is identity then as with any kind of publicity the
transparency of that value is what makes it an ethical value. Some
identities or companies may be in positions to shift the transparency
of their own identities.

> > their everyday life and thus freely co-produce their ethical value
>  > through their constructive consumer practices. On financial markets,
>  > capital flows to the most attractive brands.  More means more in this
>  > case, if you have accumulated a significant stock of ethical capital,
>  > people will freely give you their time and further attention, or, on
>  > financial markets, their capital.
>
>  But how free is this when millions of dollars are pumped into
>  advertising a brand, analyzing the consumers' use of a product and
>  reaction to its advertising, then readjusting both brand image and
>  product (not to mention product placement, store architecture etc) to
>  fit closer to the model developed by the analysis? Hasn't the
>  accumulation of mass affect been calculated and engineered?

A good example of reputation and value is that agademic and research
papers are now being published online for open access by respectid
universities. This makes it possible for people who are researching
specific topics to see which institutions and people within those
institutions are hot or current or contentious on topics which they
would like to participate in. This may result in people learning
without paying. It also increases or changes the reputation of the
institution publishing but it has been attracting $tudents to
universities who are open and also doing interesting work.

The value shift is from the information being the fenced resource to
the participation in the source community being seen as the aspect of
the degree to purchase. Attraction of funds around the openly
published research ideas is also possible.

>  I ask the question because there is a big emphasis right now on the
>  freedom of people to do this or that with the net, at the same time as
>  it is more and more flooded with ads and surveillance. And though I
>  appreciate all freedoms, I am not sure they expand when you just ignore
>  real constraints. Still, great post, great thread, this is just a
>  question of detail.

Yes there are very real policies and laws being crafted which are
fragmenting openness
and reducing access. Copyright is being used to shut people who *have*
paid for their courses from
university networks if they share 'copyrighted materials' on the
university network.

Given that this suggestion has a legal concern at core it is
interesting that the nonsense in that statement has not been
unpacked prior to broadcasting that requirement on the internet:

**TENNESSEE S.B. 3974 - PIRACY/DIGITAL RIGHTS MANAGEMENT
Sponsor: Senator Tim Burchett (R)
Summary: Requires every public institution of higher learning to, by
January 15 of each year: (a) develop and enforce a policy defining
computer and network usage that clearly describes and prohibits the
infringement of copyrighted works over the school's computer and
network resources; (b) thoroughly analyze its computer network,
including local area and internal networks to determine whether it is
being used to transmit copyrighted information and either: (1) certify
to the Tennessee Higher Education Commission that an analysis
indicates that the network is not being used to transmit copyrighted
works and that the institution has not received ten or more legally
valid notices of infringement in the preceding year or (2) take
affirmative steps to prevent the infringement of copyrighted works
over the school's computer and network resources.
Takes effect upon enactment.
http://www.legislature.state.tn.us/bills/currentga/BILL/SB3974.pdf

It is possible that they really do mean that only public domain or
copyleft material should be traffic on the university networks. Its an
interesting thought; it would mean it would require the the students
to publish their own thoughts using public domain or copyleft
licensing. Which could make this current debate a vintage issue if
students decide that copyright is a royal pain and take it
literally/legally to mean what it suggests.

I think that there is an openness now about what people have to offer
and people are being hired as speakers and participants based on an
understanding of the works what people have developed thus far and an
interest in where that conversation is likely to go next.

People being able to do this for themselves is a more social means of
distribution.
Traditional media publishers are making suggestions such as the above
listed legislation suggestion which aim to secure their own role as
the people with permission to broadcast. This is about control of
traditional publishing roles not so much about money back to authors
as the value in publishing for one's self is that any financial
interest in your thoughts will come direct to you. People may mediate
those conversations through an agent but the agent is a different
relationship than a publisher. The locus of control closer to the
author because their identity is in their own hands.

Broadcasters are increasingly likely to try to use copyright and
intellectual property arguments to claim control or
income from material broadcast in digital networks. There was already
an attempt to push a copyright through for broadcasters who transmit
works at WIPO. It hasn't been successful yet but the danger with that
is that any news collecting agency could transmit any material without
prior permission and then have copyright on that material regardless
of the intent of the author. It is a shift away from any relationship
between creating and copyright. Larger publishing and media systems
have more invested in infrastructure than in their own writers and so
are pushing their interests in the pipes rather than interests in
partnerships around the generation of new works.

The choices round these issues will be important to the way we make value.

Janet